This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

I am delaying comment until I finish reading the opinion. I have not gotten to his dissent yet. I will get back to you on this though.

It's clear when you read it that the other Justices in dissent, abrogated the formality to the Chief Justice, as his dissent was rooted in procedure and discretion. It was also the longest of the dissents, by design.

Tim-

“When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.” - P. J. O’Rourke
“Socialism is great until you run out of someone elses money” Margaret Thatcher

I don't know about Canada, but here in the U.S.A, the govenment treats married people differently than singles, so they should not be able to discrimiate against SSM.

That's my point - same thing happens here. We're well past the time when government has any national interest in promoting marriage through tax and benefit policy. Government should be out of the marriage business. The government should treat all individuals equally regardless of their marital status. If government wasn't in the business of picking winners and losers based on marital status, you wouldn't have had this massive battle over sanctioning same sex marriage.

A Canadian conservative is one who believes in limited government and that the government should stay out of our wallets and out of our bedrooms.

It's illegal to bar someone from holding a job because of their faith, and rightfully so.

Employers have a duty to accommodate an employees religion unless said accommodations become too burdensome to the employer. The question is, is an employee refusing to do a required job duty because of religious reasons constitute an undue burden. I would say so.

So again, the wishes of the people were not honored [least the ones who voted for traditional marriage] all because the issue was used for political purposes.

Yes, absolutely. Your wishes are purely political purposes, derived in no great fashion from a purely objective view of the Constitution. Democracy can be a vile institution which requires the majority to determine the rights of a minority. Minorities are usually despised by the majorities, thus democracy has often tended to destroy their liberty.

Civil liberties should not to be determined by the ignorant masses, of which you would be among them.

"We all of us know down here that politics is a tough game. And I don't think there's any point in being Irish if you don't know that the world is going to break your heart eventually."-Daniel Patrick Moynihan, December 5, 1963

Come now, this is hardly the first time the Court has stretched a Constitutional point like a rubber band and twisted it far out of its meaning.

Roe v Wade for one, the Commerce Clause for another. It's not a constructionist decision but it isn't the end of the world either.

The decision is pretty fairly grounded in constitutional law. 14th amendment is clear, marriage, like many rights in the US, is considered a right based on precedent(and trust me, if we stopped having all those rights derived from precedent, you would be unhappy), and from there there is not many options for the court.

We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

The left affirmed in the ruling that religious institutions are protected by the 1st amendment from being forced to recognize same-sex marriage. The very ruling that makes same-sex marriage legal in all 50 states is now the precedent that forever protects churches and other religious institutions from having to recognize or support them.

Don't kid yourself. What one Supreme Court has ruled can be overturned by another court in the future - it's happened many times before. When the constitution doesn't seem to bind justices to ruling under the law, then an alternate interpretation can be the "forever" ruling next time around.

A Canadian conservative is one who believes in limited government and that the government should stay out of our wallets and out of our bedrooms.

Sounds like what might have been said in the last days of Sodom and Gomorrah.

So just to be clear, you are in agreement with ISIS stance that gay marriage is bad?

"Education is the only thing you can do that will change society. Everything else is just a band-aid." - Jacqueline de Chollet
"Boys will be boys. But boys will not be president." - Ronald Regan
"The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy." - Donald J. Trump